[extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical

Emlyn ORegan Emlyn.Oregan at micromet.com.au
Tue Mar 2 05:28:47 UTC 2004


-----Original Message-----
From: Harvey Newstrom [mailto:mail at HarveyNewstrom.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2004 1:39 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Futurist priorities was ex-tropical

Brian Lee wrote,
> >From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> >I must respectfully disagree with this.  Markets are the
> >most efficient at maximizing profits.  But the most
> >profitable product is not necessarily the best one.
> >Most people can't afford the most expensive, best PC. 
> >So the most profitable PCs are the cheapo ones that
> >are "good enough" for "most" purposes.  But as for the
> >goal of what a PC should be, I do not find the market
> >acceptable.
> 
> The market here is affordable PCs.

You redefined my goal from "best PC" to "affordable PC".  The market
might
be the best at making your "affordable PCs".  But I am still not
convinced
that the market produces the "best PC" using criteria other than price.

---
Markets should always find the most acceptable price/quality tradeoff
for the average customer, within environmental parameters such as
accepted architecture. If the most common PCs are high quality but too
expensive, there will be a pressure to lower the price at the expense of
quality. Probably, the market keeps driving downward until the minimally
functional PC is discovered (any worse and it becomes too annoying to
use - hey presto, the wintel PC!).

In theory, in the short term, you should also be able to get excellent
PCs, just for a higher price. But over time, the environmental aspects
seem to degrade (the prominent architecture is driven by the minimum
acceptable needs for the masses, rather than the best architecture
possible), so the best PC available tends toward the absolutely highest
quality piece of shit that can possibly be made. In a way, though, that
can still tend to be an excellent beastie. It's just not the maximally
excellent machine that you can imagine, given X units of time of market
development. It may in fact be the best machine you could possibly
develop while taking into account all competing demands (such as the
price sensitive mass market).
---

> An HMO is not a market. If healthcare was market driven we would have
> greater availability and lower prices. As it is there is heavy govt 
> regulation.

I thought HMO's were the market's answer to healthcare.  I thought they
provided the cheapest healthcare as per market desires.  That's why I
suggested them as an example where the market maximizes money over
quality.
If you can point out any other examples of market-driven health-care, I
will
try to consider that.  But I still am not convinced that the market
produces
the "best" quality of health-care rather than the most "cost-effective"
health-care.  Health-care seems to be the obvious example where price is
NOT
the most important criteria.

> It would be pretty nice if we had full information on healthcare and 
> heavy competition.  Alas, we don't (yet) so the US has the bloated 
> system that we have. It could be a lot more efficient.

More efficient at what?  Controlling costs?  Or extending lifespan?  I
am
not convinced that these are the same goals.  What happens if we want
maximum availability, effectiveness and quality instead of best cost,
effectiveness, and quantity?

---
-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS GIAC Certified
GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com> 


---
What do you mean by this, Harvey? Cost will always be a variable in this
equation. You need to say "maximum availability, effectiveness and
quality at cost setting X". Does "Maximum availability" mean the
greatest possible solution set for the masses, or development of the
most options possible for Bill Gates, should he get sick? Does maximum
effectiveness mean the treatments should always work (minimizing the
number of treatments so that this is true) or does it mean the optimal
tradeoff between availability and effectiveness? Does maximum quality
again mean at an affordable price, or the absolute maximum quality
available, irrespective of price (ie the most expensive solution
available)? 

Emlyn
-- 



***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document.
No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or
other defect.




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list